APHC010111742018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 4859/2018 Between: 1. T.HARINATHA REDDY,, S/O T.SIDDA REEDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURE , R/O RAMIREDDYGARIPALLE VILLAGE, PONNETIPALEM HAMLET, MADANAPALTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PRL SECY REVENUE DEPT STATE OF A P, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A. P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD- REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPT., A.P.SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD- REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 4. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, TELGUGU GANGA PROJECT NELLORE, NETLORE DISTRICT 5. THE L A O/JOINT COLLECTOR, A.V.R.H.N.S.S., PUNGANUR BRANCH CANAL, PHASE-II, (HANDREENEEVA SRUJALA SRAVANTHI PROJECT)UNIT-1, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AVR HNSS DIVISION-12, MADANAPALLE,CHITTOOR. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AVR HNSS DIVISION-12, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR. 8. SPECIAL DY COLLECTOR LA, HNSS, UNIT-1, MADANAPALLE,CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to set aside the proceedings of the respondent No.7 in ROC No.G1 /110/2017 dated 8-8-2017, of Special Deputy Collector, LA, HNSS unit-1, Madanapalle, in so far as land of the petitioner In Sy.No.377/A to an extent of Ac.1.50cents of Ramireddigari village, Hamlet of Ponutipalem Gram Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, after declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, voitative of Art.21, Art.31-A and Art.300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings under 2013 Land Acquisition Act and pay just compensation for the land which were already taken possession of, as per the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act of 2013, including the compensation for trees, within time frame, in the Interest of Justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the respondents to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings, for the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.377/A to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of Ramireddigari village, Hamlet of Ponutipalem Gram Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District by SUSPENDING proceedings in ROC No.G1/110/2017 dated 8-8-2017, of 7th respondent, in the interest of Justice, Pending Disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 3 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to receive the additional material papers in the present W.P.No.4859 of 2018 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to receive the additional material papers in the present W.P.No.4859 of 2018 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.8 in the WP No.4859 of 2018 to file counter affidavit and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 4 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to set aside the proceedings of the respondent No.7 in ROC No.G1 /110/2017 dated 8-8-2017, of Special Deputy Collector, LA, HNSS unit-1, Madanapalle, in so far as land of the petitioner In Sy.No.377/A to an extent of Ac.1.50cents of Ramireddigari village, Hamlet of Ponutipalem Gram Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, after declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, voitative of Art.21, Art.31-A and Art.300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings under 2013 Land Acquisition Act and pay just compensation for the land which were already taken possession of, as per the Provisions of Land Acquisition Act of 2013, including the compensation for trees, within time frame, in the Interest of Justice and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Acs.1.50 cents situated in Sy.No.377/A of Ramreddypalli village, Ponnutipalem gram panchayat, having purchased the same from one Smt. Kadiramma, Smt. Narsamma and Smt. Gangulamma by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3878 of 1991. Ever since, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land, recognizing which, his name was also 5 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 mutated in the relevant revenue records and the petitioner was also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Government has undertaken HNSS project, 2nd phase for Punganur branch canal, as a part of which, initially, land to an extent of Acs.45.23 cents was held sufficient for execution of the project in Madanapalle division, but, due to subsequent developments, an additional land admeasuring Acs.4.50 cents was required for execution of the summer storage tank at Chippili. As such, the 6th respondent, vide letter dated 24.03.2016 sought for additional land situated in Sy.Nos.376, 377, 378, 381, 392 and 486 to a total extent of Acs.4.05 cents. Pursuant to the same, the 7th respondent addressed a letter to the 9th respondent on 04.04.2016 instructing him to survey the lands and to send a report; accordingly, the 9th respondent sent a report after conducting an enquiry with regard to the possession of the lands falling in the aforementioned survey numbers. In the said report, the petitioner‟s details were mentioned in Sl.No.2 that he is in possession of patta land admeasuring Acs.1.78 cents in Sy.No.377 and that the said land consists of nine tamarind trees and one neem tree. Thereafter, a preliminary notification was issued on 21.04.2016 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act notifying the lands situated in Sy.Nos.376/1J/2, 376/1AL/2, 376/2B2, 378/1A, 392/2A to an extent of Acs.2.16 cents for acquisition i.e., excluding the petitioner‟s land. Subsequently, declaration 6 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 was also issued through Rc.G1/1734/2016, dated 23.11.2016 under Section 19(1) of the Act 30 of 2013. 4. While the matter stood thus, when the respondent authorities started interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without paying any compensation, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25572 of 2016 which was disposed of on 10.08.2016, directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner‟s land without following due procedure under law, however, the respondents were given liberty to take necessary steps for the purpose of survey of the land in terms of Section 12 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Thereafter, the respondent authorities continued to dig a tunnel and the mouth of the tunnel was left open in the petitioner‟s land. As the petitioner‟s land was already utilized by the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities seeking compensation, wherein, he was informed that the subject land is a DKT land and that compensation need not be paid for the same. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer under Right to Information Act, 2005 with a request to furnish information as to whether the land in Sy.No.377 is included in the prohibited properties list. In reply, the petitioner was informed by the Mandal Revenue Officer that the subject land is not in 7 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 prohibited properties list and the petitioner was also furnished an extract of the „A‟ register which discloses that the land in Sy.No.377 is a Government Dry land. On several representations submitted by the petitioner claiming that the land is a patta land, the 3rd respondent, vide Roc.SDT/65/2016, dated Nil.11.2016, directed the petitioner to appear on 19.11.2016 to substantiate his claim along with all relevant records. Accordingly, the petitioner approached before the concerned authorities and after considering his claim, a report was sent by the 9th respondent to the 3rd respondent holding that the land is reserved for depressed class people, without any basis. 6. While the matter stood thus, an award was passed by the concerned official vide ROC.g1/1734/2016, dated 12.01.2017 and an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- per acre was fixed as compensation to the adjacent land owners. The 7th respondent, basing on a report submitted by the 8th respondent dated 08.07.2017, issued the impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2017 stating as under: “It is reported that at the lands were already published in Preliminary Notification along with other settlement lands, at the later stage it is noticed the dispute in the above lands. Originally the lands are reserved for Depressed Class. As seen the above report, it attracts the provisions of the POT Act, violation of conditions as the first sale transaction took place in the year 1989 vide document No.3693/1989 dated 19.08.1989. 8 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 It is informed that the above issue attracts violation conditions, and the present enjoyers are not eligible for payment of compensation. In the above circumstances, you are requested to refer the matter to the LARR Authority as the title over the land could not established.” Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 7. The 8th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner‟s claim was subjected to a detailed and exhaustive examination by the then Land Acquisition Officer as well as the then Joint Collector, Chittoor and upon such meticulous scrutiny of the original revenue records and reports submitted by the competent revenue authorities, the impugned proceedings were issued. It is further stated that pursuant to the claim raised by the petitioner, the Sub-Collector directed the Tahsildar, Madanapalle, to verify the origin and nature of the petitioner‟s title, who, after examining the A-Register, R.H. Register and sale records, reported that the land was originally assigned to Mala Ramudu, that his son Sirivelu and daughter-in-law Narasamma succeeded to it, and that the first alienation took place only through a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1989. The Tahsildar‟s report and the connected revenue records were subsequently examined by the Sub- Collector/Special Deputy Collector and the Joint Collector, Chittoor; it was found that Sy.No.377/2 admeasuring Ac.1.78 cents was D.C. Reserved Land, distinct from settlement patta lands, and that no preliminary 9 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 notification had been issued in respect of that land. Hence, the Joint Collector concluded that the land was assigned land covered by the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation. 8. It is further contended that the absence of an express non- alienation clause in the original assignment patta does not exclude the application of the 1977 Act. The prohibition on transfer arises from the statutory provisions of Sections 2(1) and 3 of the Act and applies to assigned lands irrespective of the terms of the original grant. The non- availability of the old DKT patta, therefore, does not alter the legal character of the land, which is supported by the A-Register, R.H. Register and ROR records. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Heard Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 10. Perused the entire material available on record. It can be seen from the impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2017 that on 08.07.2017, it is reported that the land in Sy.No.377 admeasuring Acs.4.80 cents is classified as Government Dry as per A-Register and that there is an entry in the A-Register that Sy.No.377 is reserved for depressed classes in Collector‟s No.11383/24, dated 12.12.1924. The R.H., page issued for the period 1915 to 1955 shows that the land in Sy.No.377 of Ponnutipalem village stands in the name of Mala Ramudu – original owner of the land. 10 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 The daughter in law of Mala Ramudu namely Smt. S. Narasamma wife of Sirivelu was issued the pattadar pass book vide ROR IB Khata No.212 wherein, it is mentioned as DKT land. The impugned proceedings further state that the land admeasuring Acs.1.78 cents in Sy.No.377/2, which was proposed for acquisition is under enjoyment of the petitioner along with one Reddivari Sai Prasad Reddy. 11. Admittedly, the said land was initially assigned in the name of Mala Ramudu way back in the year 1924 and thereafter, pattadar passbooks and title deeds under ROR 1B were also issued in favour of daughter-in-law of Mala Ramudu i.e., Smt. S. Narasamma who in turn has sold away the subject land to the subsequent purchasers including the petitioner herein. 12. Under similar circumstances, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in KM. Kamallula Basha and Ors., Vs. District Collector, Chittoor1, observed as under: “10. Be that as it may, when the Government itself incorporated conditions prohibiting alienation for the first time in the year 1954, it is just unimaginable as to how the same condition would operate for the assignments made two decades earlier thereto. Another aspect of the matter is that a purchaser of an assigned land virtually enjoys the possession adverse to the interest of the Government and with the expiry of thirty (30) years stipulated under the 1 2009 SCC OnLine AP 88 11 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 Limitation Act, 1963, he acquires ownership rights by way of prescription.” 13. It is an undisputed position that prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, the assigned lands did not contain any clause prohibiting their alienation. For the first time, by the said G.O., a clause prohibiting alienations of the assigned lands was introduced in the assignment conditions. In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the subject land was assigned in favour of one Mala Ramudu way back in the year 1924, which is prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954. Be that as it may, when the Government itself incorporated conditions prohibiting alienation for the first time in the year 1954, it is just unimaginable as to how the same condition would operate for the assignments made three decades earlier thereto. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the subject land attracts the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 14. Admittedly, the subject land was acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of HNSS project, 2nd phase for Punganur branch canal, however, the petitioner was not paid any compensation on the ground that he acquired the said property by violating certain conditions that attract the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. However, as discussed supra, no condition prohibiting alienation of the assigned land was incorporated in the assignment issued in favour of Mala Ramudu in the year 1924. Therefore, 12 VS,J W.P.No.4859 of 2018 the ground taken by the respondents for denying payment of compensation cannot be sustained. Since the subject land has already been acquired by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is entitled to compensation in accordance with law, on par with the landowners of the adjoining lands. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2017 are hereby set-aside. Further, the 5th respondent is directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for acquiring his land admeasuring Acs.1.50 cents situated in Sy.No.377/A of Ramreddypalli village, Ponnutipalem gram panchayat, on par with the landowners of the adjoining lands. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 09.09.2026 Gss